Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, January 23, 1993 TAG: 9301230135
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: DAN BALZ THE WASHINGTON POST
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Long
POLITICAL WOUND WAS SELF-INFLICTED
President Clinton promised to hit the ground running, but his stumble over Zoe E. Baird's nomination as attorney general may tell as much about the new administration's competence and political instincts as the well-staged inaugural earlier in the week.In dumping Baird early Friday morning to snuff out a growing embarrassment, Clinton showed - as he often did during the campaign - that he will not allow problems to fester too long. His quick action prevented real erosion of his political capital and spared Senate Democrats the agonizing prospect of rebuffing their president or turning their backs on the public.
But for Clinton, the uproar Former Baird employees may be deported; Senate hurries through confirmations. A2 over Baird's nomination was a self-inflicted wound, showing that the Cabinet process he proudly micromanaged with only a few close aides was less than adequate - and more importantly that he and his advisers may have less feel for Middle America than he often claims.
Once public opinion shifted dramatically against Baird for employing illegal immigrants to care for her young child, Clinton faced a no-win choice. As one Senate ally said Friday, "I don't think there was much room there for him to operate."
Clinton could have stood by his nominee to demonstrate that he is a fighter, but risked a draining and demoralizing battle he was likely to lose anyway. Or he could - as he did - cave in quickly to a growing tide of public opinion and risk sending signals that loyalty means less to him than his own political survival. Allies said Friday Clinton was smart to recognize reality and act quickly, regardless of the embarrassment of jettisoning a prospective Cabinet appointee on his second day in office.
Linda DiVall, a Republican pollster, said Clinton's initial decision to nominate Baird in the face of information held by his transition team that she had violated immigration and tax laws undermines Clinton's statements that he is in touch with ordinary Americans.
DiVall said the decision to withdraw Baird's nomination "doesn't disguise that he was presented this piece of information and didn't think it was a big enough deal or felt that, given the fact that they controlled the Senate, they could get the nomination passed."
She added, "For as much as Clinton professes to be in touch with the average working person, they didn't have a clue to what the average working woman goes through to get day care."
Clinton's transition advisers may not have understood the implications of Baird's actions, but ordinary Americans got to the heart of it quickly - and let Washington know once again that they were serious about the messages they sent in 1992.
Ruth Mandell, director of the Center for the American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, said Baird's use of illegal immigrants for child care and her failure to pay Social Security taxes on their earnings quickly translated to the average American as an act of breaking the law.
As a result, the nomination of the first woman to head the Justice Department, designed to send a dramatic signal to the country of a bold departure by the new administration, quickly became a symbol of ethical insensitivity and business-as-usual in Washington.
Mandell said the notion of appointing someone who broke the law to be the nation's chief law enforcement official was too much to overcome. "It doesn't represent change in people's mind," she said, "but represents more of the same."
By moving as quickly as he did, Clinton avoided the kind of bruising fight that then-President George Bush endured over his nomination four years ago of the late John G. Tower as Defense secretary. Nor is this quite the same as the embarrassment Jimmy Carter suffered when he was forced to withdraw his nomination of Theodore C. Sorensen as CIA director in 1977 because of Sorensen's record as a conscientious objector.
Baird began with no national reputation and without real political standing. When public opinion crystallized against her, she had nothing to fall back on - except Clinton, who had to worry about his own standing.
"It ran through Middle America like a wildfire," one Democratic senator marveled Friday. "Once that happened, with an administration that literally hadn't even gotten into its offices, with the women's groups mixed, there was no counterweight, no counterforce."
Senate Minority Leader Robert Dole, R-Kan., blamed Clinton's advisers for the embarrassment. "I feel for Zoe Baird," he said. "It was faulty transition work. She should never have been up there."
House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., said in a statement that "better staff work could have avoided putting both Ms. Baird and the president in an untenable position."
But staff work alone is only part of the issue, given Clinton's deep involvement in the Cabinet-making process and the fact that it was his reaction to Baird during their interview that vaulted her to the top of his attorney general list. A sharper political eye, either on Clinton's part or on the part of one of his top advisers, might have prevented the mess entirely.
The hope among Democrats Friday was that the storm would pass quickly and Clinton could move to his real agenda: the economy, health care and political overhaul. "I think voters will pay much more attention to the positive insights that came out of the inaugural than they will to Zoe Baird," one Democrat said.
But coming at the end of a transition marked by controversy over whether Clinton was backing away from his campaign promises or moving quickly enough to fill his subcabinet, the embarrassment now alters the terms by which the first days of his administration may be judged. Rather than the smooth start Clinton and his advisers had hoped for, they must now counter impressions that they are scrambling to get organized.